Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lawman said:


Yeah and again….

a637d0d81057dfbfea1810d758ca8701.jpg

Thats Reuters.
 

That's not from a Reuters news story; that's from an op-ed by a former State Department employee that Reuters syndicated in 2016 shortly after the Comey press conference.

The writer seems to have read "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received" and took a big leap on the jump to conclusions mat that 100 emails with classified information meant that classified documents were being verbatim transcribed (retyped) from one system to another.

From the DOJ report, the actual number of emails that contained verbatim transcriptions of classified documents was 8, on 3 e-mail chains, all Confidential, all of them sent by Clinton aides who CC'ed her. The report does not say one way or the other whether the paragraphs were copied from classified e-mails or from printed documents they had at their disposal. So again, the actual number of classified documents deliberately moved (whether by re-typing or someone using removable media the wrong way) from classified network to unclassified network that we know about... as far as I've been able to find... is zero. 

Your op-ed seems to make much of the markings that were on the e-mails when they were sanitized/released to the general public by the State Department FOIA people, which if one were just reading the op-ed and didn't know better would make you think those markings were on a source document that the emails were quoting as opposed to applied retroactively. (Obviously neither a lack of marking nor a classified fact being in one's brain or communicated verbally before being written down--as opposed to copied from another written source--changes the obligation to appropriately protect that data. I'm simply pointing out that without them it's one less data point DOJ has to show willfulness/knowledge/intent.)

Quote

No reasonable person could understand that pulling classified markings of geospatial intelligence wasn’t an illegal action or whatever reason.

I agree. Who did that, when, and how do we know it?

 

Quote

 

We are saying the governmental agencies found a way to protect her and you’re quoting the same government agencies like it’s some sort of proof it was all on the up and up.

 

I'm quoting a report that cites its sources written under the auspices of a bunch of Republican DOJ appointees that hammers the previous FBI director, also a Republican, for his missteps investigating Hillary and leading the Bureau, and was written by the same IG that hammered Bureau leadership for playing dirty going after Trump aides. It has no discernible reason to pull its punches on HRC. You're quoting an op-ed from a guy who was long gone from the USG and had no connection to the investigation or insider knowledge of the details, who doesn't show his receipts, who seems to have done some good work in his career but also left USG service with his own classified disclosure issues. (Not saying he was doing a hatchet job in his op-ed, just that it was a hot take based on the limited information available at the time and he got out over his skis a little bit.)

 

Quote

Also intent was never part of the US Code she violated and could be charged under.

793(d) and (e), 1924, and 2071(a) require an element of intent. 793(f)(1) and (2) don't explicitly require intent but haven't historically been charged without it:

Quote

We further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. [T]he prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems. The Midyear team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents.

Note that the only charge considered in the Clinton case that overlaps with the MAL docs case is 793(e), and in this instance the SC has Trump dead to rights on knowledge and intent (via audio and video tapes, text messages, and his lawyers records) to willfully retain.
 

Quote

Again, the level of “oh she couldn’t possibly have been charged,” you and others seem to want to find a way to is just astounding. At the very least all of her staff flunkies at the time should have had their clearances pulled, and if you’d gotten on JPAS at the time you’d have seen that didn’t happen. Meanwhile over at USSOAC…. We’re crushing some E 4 for plugging a purple cable into a green printer.

I definitely think she *could* have been charged on 793(f), but it would have been in an Alvin Bragg "You could make an argument that the statute works this way... It just hasn't been done before" kind of way... Not IAW DOJ charging guidelines that essentially require a guaranteed win. And I 100% agree with you that all of the staff flunkies should have lost their clearances and (like her) never sniffed the inside of a federal office building again.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, O Face said:

You’ve posted this face multiple times…In all seriousness, what the f@$k is it?  Also, I’ve been a member of this f&!?*ng forum since 2005 I think, you’re a mod right?  How long does a guy need to be a member here before he can drop some F-bombs, like the other kids??

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-chad
 

It’s just a meme and a funnier way to say yes, forcefully. I’m only a mod on the CSO page that no one ever posts on lol & I have no fuckin idea how the swearing moderation works 😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Prozac said:

When you see police lights in your rear view mirror, if you promptly pull over and speak to the officer politely, you at least have a chance of being let off with a warning. If you floor it, give the cop the bird, and tell him where he can shove it when he finally catches you, guess what? You’re gonna get that ticket & a whole lot more. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

Stuff

5 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Stuff

You two are making my brain hurt arguing about news sources.

Here's a link to fbi.gov and Comey's press statament.  https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

I'm well aware. I followed politics much more closely at the time than I do now. I ask my question because ClearedHot's statement assumes the truth of something I've occasionally heard people say (bros around the squadron and randos on Twitter), but have never actually seen alleged by any of the investigations into the server (DOJ, State IG, Congress, etc.)

E.g. From the DOJ IG's Trump-era review of DOJ's handling of the case (same DOJ IG that uncovered the email doctoring used to justify the Carter Page FISA):

****Multiple DOJ Report Quotes****

I hear what you are saying but a couple of notes and some logic should apply.

1.  Do you trust the DOJ and Comey?  It is sad we have to say it out loud but actions over the past 8 years have completely destroyed my faith in the DOJ and much of the FBI.  As you noted above they doctored FISA warrants to get to Trump.  Additionally, they knew the dossier was fake, the helped suppress the Hunter Laptop story when they knew it was real because they had a copy of it, and as the Durham report identified political interference at multiple levels which the FBI admits saying they have already put fixes in place to remedy. 

2.  Please tell me you have a basic understanding of how these classified information systems work...I am obviously not going to lay out our nations classified information structure on an unclassified forum, but it should be basic knowledge that the systems that handle TS/SCI SAR/SAP do NOT touch other systems, personal servers in particular.  It was a deliberate, purposeful and manual act to take that info and move it to Hillary's private server.  I listed the first point above because they very carefully parsed their words (just like Comey did when he made the announcement during the election), and outright lied in a few others, a few examples from your quotes:

a.  There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized
systems.
"

Given what you should know about these systems you and I both both know this is untrue.

b.  "There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not classified." (p. 255)

So again, you know it was purposeful to move that data but because they stripped the marking off in the process (you should be saying HOLY F*CK with your inside voice), that somehow adds to the sincerity of their statements of ignorance?  Seriously bro?

c.  "Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retained the same." (p. 255)

Oh so because they didn't willfully send it to a person without a clearance its all ok...even though the FBI acknowledges the contents of Hillary's serve ended up in the hands of a foreign power.

I am a simple dude and the bottomline for me is the deliberate act of taking info off those separate servers.  I can certainly see a scenario when Pence and Biden ended up with classified documents without malice and I believe punishment/prosecution should account for that.  Were the Pence documents exposed to a foreign power, likely no.  Were the Biden documents exposed to a foreign power, given they were in multiple locations including the Chinese funded Penn/Biden Center AND in the garage within reach of his crackhead son...I would raise that risk to medium.  Were the Trump documents exposed to a foreign power, prior to the indictment I would have said no since the Secret Service guards his home, but if reports of him showing items like the Iran CONOP to uncleared persons...I would also raise that risk to medium.

With Trump it certainly appears to be a willful purposeful act and he should be held accountable and I hold the exact same assessment of Hillary.  Again remember in Hillary's case it was a purposeful act to move that material and in the end it likely ended up in the hands of the Russians and Chinese and what was the impact of those actions.  Let me remind you, straight from U.S. Code on the State Department:

Title 22 - Foreign Relations

Volume: 1Date: 2004-04-01Original Date: 2004-04-01Title: Section 9.5 - Classification designations.Context: Title 22 - Foreign Relations. CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE. SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL. PART 9 - SECURITY INFORMATION REGULATIONS.

§ 9.5 Classification designations. (a) Only three (3) designations of classification are authorized: “Top Secret,” “Secret,” and “Confidential.”

(1) Top Secret. Information may be classified “Top Secret” if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. This classification should be used with the utmost restraint. Examples of “exceptionally grave damage” include armed hostilities against the United States or its allies; disruption of foreign relations vitally affecting the national security; the compromise of vital national defense plans or complex cryptologic and communications intelligence systems; the revelation of sensitive intelligence operations; and the disclosure of scientific or technological developments vital to national security.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-chad
 

It’s just a meme and a funnier way to say yes, forcefully. I’m only a mod on the CSO page that no one ever posts on lol & I have no in idea how the swearing moderation works 😅

Ok. Thank you. Man, I’ve gotten old. 


“Now you kids with your loud music, and your Dan Fogleberg, your Zima, hula hoops and pac-man video games” 

-Ted Denslow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-chad
 

It’s just a meme and a funnier way to say yes, forcefully. I’m only a mod on the CSO page that no one ever posts on lol & I have no fuckin idea how the swearing moderation works 😅

We have a CSO page...wow who knew...seems like a waste, kind of like an 18X page.

🥃

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I hear what you are saying but a couple of notes and some logic should apply.

1.  Do you trust the DOJ and Comey?  It is sad we have to say it out loud but actions over the past 8 years have completely destroyed my faith in the DOJ and much of the FBI.  As you noted above they doctored FISA warrants to get to Trump.  Additionally, they knew the dossier was fake, the helped suppress the Hunter Laptop story when they knew it was real because they had a copy of it, and as the Durham report identified political interference at multiple levels which the FBI admits saying they have already put fixes in place to remedy. 

Blanket "it depends" to "Do I trust the DOJ?," but in this instance I'm not trusting Comey's FBI or Loretta Lynch's DOJ, I'm trusting the DOJ IG Horowitz who is the reason we know about the doctored e-mail and the deficient FISA applications in the first place, and I'm drawing a logical conclusion that if there were evidence that (despite what Comey said in 2016 and what the IG report said in 2018) the DOJ had in its possession that did show intent, willfulness, direction, etc., etc., there is no reason why Jeff Sessions, Matt Whitaker, or Bill Barr wouldn't have made it very public. (Especially Barr.)
 

Quote

2.  Please tell me you have a basic understanding of how these classified information systems work...I am obviously not going to lay out our nations classified information structure on an unclassified forum, but it should be basic knowledge that the systems that handle TS/SCI SAR/SAP do NOT touch other systems, personal servers in particular.  It was a deliberate, purposeful and manual act to take that info and move it to Hillary's private server.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. You're jumping to the conclusion that if classified information got into an email on an unclassified network, it had to be because someone retyped it from an email or document on a classified network. I still (and I keep asking for it) have yet to see anything that alleges that that happened in this case. I'm sure you have a basic understanding of the fact that if you were a dirtbag, you could take any number of pieces of classified information from your brain into Hotmail and click Send without having to look at a SIPR or JWICS machine first. And I assume you realize that inadvertent spillage happens... not infrequently... when people f**k up and commit classification by compilation, or put things in unclassified channels prematurely (e.g. before I was a staff weenie I'd hear about once a year about someone putting an ATO callsign on "unclass" paperwork prior to 0000z on execution day, at which point the callsign was still Confidential). Or that talking about things that have leaked into open-source is still spillage.

That's exactly what the Politico article Lawman linked to says happened at least with some of the docs in this case:

Quote

 

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.

However, State is set to acquiesce in the determinations regarding classified programs like drone strikes because there is a longstanding, government-wide consensus that such information must be treated as classified even if it leaks or becomes apparent from events on the ground, the official added.

 

The Washington Post likewise talked to congressional staffers that had reviewed the email chains and they said something similar:

Quote

 

[I]t is not possible to “cut and paste” from the classified system into the unclassified system. Instead, one would have to extract the information from the classified system and then reenter it manually into the unclassified system. Thus far, no one has alleged that happened.

Instead, congressional aides say, the concern centers on the fact that secret information was revealed as part of an email exchange. In at least one case, the discussion started with an aide forwarding a newspaper article; then in subsequent exchanges, aides revealed sensitive details as they discussed (for instance) the shortcomings of that public report. Ultimately the email chain ended up in Clinton’s email box. If the email chain was released, some intelligence officials believe, it would confirm aspects of a secret program.

 

 
And in the one instance where Confidential portion-marked data wound up in her inbox, it apparently was apparently unclassified at the time and incorrectly marked:

Quote

The emails concerned proposed talking points for Clinton when she called a foreign leader. The State Department later said the (C) markings should have been removed as a matter of course once Clinton decided to place the call but through “human error,” they had not been deleted.

Sen. Chuck Grassley released the State Department's Information Security office's (the people that did the spill analysis after the FBI criminal inquiry wrapped and assessed fault for individual security violations) final report in 2019, and they found:

Quote

image.png.85b93e9473836a47e78a77a2ae1cef73.png


They ultimately found 497 security violations, of which 91 were attributable to 38 specific individuals:

Quote

image.png.09b14f0639f15667069be1d50d378f21.png

 

... and of those, HRC herself was not deemed culpable for them:

Quote

image.thumb.png.1eb623e948f0aaa37ea17f0ef49c3c57.png


Occam's Razor: If she had verbatim transcribed something from high side to low side, or directed someone to do so, it would be very clear evidence of intent and you wouldn't have the words "no evidence" all over the DOJ IG report. It might say "some evidence," or "insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," or some such thing but it wouldn't say "no evidence." And again, even if you don't trust Comey or for some reason Horowitz on that, there's no reason Trump's AGs wouldn't have told the world. For that matter, the Statute of Limitations on 793 crimes is 10 years... If they'd had the evidence, they were remarkably lax about the "Lock her up!" thing. They didn't even reopen the investigation so far as we know. Likewise, if the State Department in its spill investigation had found she was culpable, Mike Pompeo would have had zero incentive to hide that from us.
 

Quote

I am a simple dude and the bottomline for me is the deliberate act of taking info off those separate servers.  I can certainly see a scenario when Pence and Biden ended up with classified documents without malice and I believe punishment/prosecution should account for that.  Were the Pence documents exposed to a foreign power, likely no.  Were the Biden documents exposed to a foreign power, given they were in multiple locations including the Chinese funded Penn/Biden Center AND in the garage within reach of his crackhead son...I would raise that risk to medium.  Were the Trump documents exposed to a foreign power, prior to the indictment I would have said no since the Secret Service guards his home, but if reports of him showing items like the Iran CONOP to uncleared persons...I would also raise that risk to medium.

Concur 100% with your threat analysis... Just not with the unsupported assumption that she caused data to be moved from classified systems to unclassified systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Blanket "it depends" to "Do I trust the DOJ?," but in this instance I'm not trusting Comey's FBI or Loretta Lynch's DOJ, I'm trusting the DOJ IG Horowitz who is the reason we know about the doctored e-mail and the deficient FISA applications in the first place, and I'm drawing a logical conclusion that if there were evidence that (despite what Comey said in 2016 and what the IG report said in 2018) the DOJ had in its possession that did show intent, willfulness, direction, etc., etc., there is no reason why Jeff Sessions, Matt Whitaker, or Bill Barr wouldn't have made it very public. (Especially Barr.)
 

You're assuming facts not in evidence. You're jumping to the conclusion that if classified information got into an email on an unclassified network, it had to be because someone retyped it from an email or document on a classified network. I still (and I keep asking for it) have yet to see anything that alleges that that happened in this case. I'm sure you have a basic understanding of the fact that if you were a dirtbag, you could take any number of pieces of classified information from your brain into Hotmail and click Send without having to look at a SIPR or JWICS machine first. And I assume you realize that inadvertent spillage happens... not infrequently... when people f**k up and commit classification by compilation, or put things in unclassified channels prematurely (e.g. before I was a staff weenie I'd hear about once a year about someone putting an ATO callsign on "unclass" paperwork prior to 0000z on execution day, at which point the callsign was still Confidential). Or that talking about things that have leaked into open-source is still spillage.

That's exactly what the Politico article Lawman linked to says happened at least with some of the docs in this case:

The Washington Post likewise talked to congressional staffers that had reviewed the email chains and they said something similar:

 
And in the one instance where Confidential portion-marked data wound up in her inbox, it apparently was apparently unclassified at the time and incorrectly marked:

Sen. Chuck Grassley released the State Department's Information Security office's (the people that did the spill analysis after the FBI criminal inquiry wrapped and assessed fault for individual security violations) final report in 2019, and they found:


They ultimately found 497 security violations, of which 91 were attributable to 38 specific individuals:

 

... and of those, HRC herself was not deemed culpable for them:


Occam's Razor: If she had verbatim transcribed something from high side to low side, or directed someone to do so, it would be very clear evidence of intent and you wouldn't have the words "no evidence" all over the DOJ IG report. It might say "some evidence," or "insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," or some such thing but it wouldn't say "no evidence." And again, even if you don't trust Comey or for some reason Horowitz on that, there's no reason Trump's AGs wouldn't have told the world. For that matter, the Statute of Limitations on 793 crimes is 10 years... If they'd had the evidence, they were remarkably lax about the "Lock her up!" thing. They didn't even reopen the investigation so far as we know. Likewise, if the State Department in its spill investigation had found she was culpable, Mike Pompeo would have had zero incentive to hide that from us.
 

Concur 100% with your threat analysis... Just not with the unsupported assumption that she caused data to be moved from classified systems to unclassified systems.

Well, then I guess there was no reason for Hillary have her staff get rid of her phones with a hammer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm positive CH knows this, but DIsco did you watch Comey's testimony to congress?  HRC somehow convinced investigators that she may not have understood portion markings.  Let that sink in.  An original classification authority, read into TS/SAP/SAR that had worked in government for decades including being the first lady (package deal).   It's an absurdity.

Reference #9&10, from Politico, Link.  

Simple truth:  the rules are different for the elected/appointed.  For fuck's sake, Sandy Berger got probation and a fine for straight up steeling classified documents.

I am 100% positive that Trump is some kind of weird narcissistic classified document hoarder.   And if there was any actual fairness, all of the schmucks would have been judged by the same standard that Kristian Saucier was held to.  But that isn't reality.

But the double standard is obvious.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m just laughing how Hillary Clinton still lives rent free in so many heads. Screw her, she’s gone and never holding office of any kind ever again! If you wanna charge her and are able to do so, be my guest!

Meanwhile right now the leading contender for the GOP nomination just got indicted for 38 felony counts and is on tape basically saying he did exactly what he is charged with!

The best time to start doing the right thing was the day you were born, the second best time is right freaking now.

Trump’s actions are not defendable, are inexplicable for any legitimate purpose, and IMHO are pretty clearly criminal. Regardless of what happened in the past, which we cannot change, we should move forward with appropriate justice.

If anyone on the right is big mad today and then at some point in the future is able to convene a grand jury to charge a Democratic Party leader, staffer, etc. for crimes this egregious, I will say it again in non-meme form: your terms are acceptable.

No one is above the law.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

But the double standard is obvious.

Even if you believe this is true WRT Dems vs GOP, which I don’t agree but can understand why people feel this way…does that change how we should handle Trump’s case right now?

Should the refs do make-up calls or do we just say oh well, every Congressman and higher are just exempt from these laws or what?

Im genuinely asking. If you think trump did nothing wrong, ok.

But if you think he seems guilty of these charges and they are for similar actions to what Hillary or anyone else on the left has done in the past…how do you handle his case? We can’t change the past, but we can decide the future.

Magic wand, you’re the judge, what do you do?

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you believe this is true WRT Dems vs GOP, which I don’t agree but can understand why people feel this way…does that change how we should handle Trump’s case right now?
Should the refs do make-up calls or do we just say oh well, every Congressman and higher are just exempt from these laws or what?
Im genuinely asking. If you think trump did nothing wrong, ok.
But if you think he seems guilty of these charges and they are for similar actions to what Hillary or anyone else on the left has done in the past…how do you handle his case? We can’t change the past, but we can decide the future.
Magic wand, you’re the judge, what do you do?

The time that Hillary would have most appropriately been charged having finished the investigation was… that’s right… in the middle of her being the front runner for the Democratic Party in the 16 election.


Somehow that wasn’t allowed to happen. So no suddenly deciding to act appropriately now while simultaneously claiming this has nothing to do with partisan manipulation of the justice department just isn’t going to work here.

Your in a spectrum of political demographic that keep screaming about Trump apologists or whatever label, but at the end of the day they are right. An unusual action is being applied to their preferred candidate. Notice I said unusual, not unethical or illegal or whatever, because the precedence for protection and ignoring crimes has already been set for the political class.

Trump isn’t being charged because he did something uniquely wrong. He is being charged because he so brazenly and openly made the public aware of the shady crap we ignored for decades from our political caste. They are doing their best to destroy him not because they didn’t do the same, but because they are afraid of the attention to their normal actions that is now impossible to ignore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lawman said:


Somehow that wasn’t allowed to happen. So no suddenly deciding to act appropriately now while simultaneously claiming this has nothing to do with partisan manipulation of the justice department just isn’t going to work here.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You do believe that Hillary should have been charged, but specifically because she wasn’t, you now don’t think Trump should be charged now either. Is this correct?

Is that what you teach your kids? Two wrongs make a right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be clear, even though I don’t agree in full on the premise here.

Many people on the right I think believe that:

Hillary, the official Dem nominee for President at the time, mishandled classified information in a way worthy of felony charges. Yet for various reasons, she was let off the hook. We buggered that one! So mad!!

AND

Trump, the leading person for the GOP nomination today, also mishandled classified information in a way that in fact has brought felony charges.

Despite this (in your mind) very similar situation, you’re now determined to exactly repeat the mistakes of the past, for what, political fairness? Equality?

Is that correct?

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Even if you believe this is true WRT Dems vs GOP, which I don’t agree but can understand why people feel this way…does that change how we should handle Trump’s case right now?

Not Dems/GOP.  This is really a Trump thing.  Partly of his own doing I will grant.

Like I said, if there were any sort of actual fairness in the world, all of them would be held to the same standard as the naïve and stupid Navy kid that took pictures of a submarine for keepsakes.

But that isn't reality.  In the real world precedent matters, without it people lose trust.  A big chunk of the country thinks the FBI/DOJ is Hoover level corrupt.  Trump is playing against that. 

I honestly vacillate back and forth on how much forethought I'm willing to assume he has in all this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You do believe that Hillary should have been charged, but specifically because she wasn’t, you now don’t think Trump should be charged now either. Is this correct?
Is that what you teach your kids? Two wrongs make a right?

No you don’t get to pretend it’s no big deal we didn’t charge Hillary and just call it my bad here…

If you are the executive branch right now you are making the claim the justice department and the FBI are beyond the partisanship, yet your criminally offending son is somehow never facing any charges when just off simple handgun possession he has committed a felony. Your party’s previous front runner was excused. But now you just have to follow the letter of the law and charge your single biggest political rival with a felony only months after we found classified documents in your F’ing garage. They hid behind prosecutorial discretion and invented ideas of intent.


Sorry, but this isn’t a “just because the let Hillary” for you. I’d happily watch Trump go to jail, provided the same government officials currently screaming about what he did were being charged right along side him. Until that comes, yeah I’d rather we not go jailing political rivals for crimes we know the other side committed. At least it would let the democratic process play out. Right now everything the screamers like Jim Jordan are saying about the weaponization of the justice department is actively happening. But hey we ignored it when the IRS was doing it, so why not let this game go on as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Sorry, but this isn’t a “just because the let Hillary” for you. I’d happily watch Trump go to jail, provided the same government officials currently screaming about what he did were being charged right along side him. Until that comes, yeah I’d rather we not go jailing political rivals for crimes we know the other side committed. At least it would let the democratic process play out.

So no political leaders or declared candidates should be charged with crimes so we can “let the democratic process play out?”

What alternative process do you recommend for charging people you think are currently unjustly going on with life?

Was there not ample time and opportunity for Trump’s DOJ to charge Hillary if the case was there, even if just for pure political payback? Surely there was. Why did Sessions, Barr or others fail to do that?

Can a prosecutor not bring charges against private citizen Hunter Biden if they wanted to? That is fine by me if there is a case a prosecutor thinks they can win.

Charging sitting President Biden is highly unlikely because the legal remedy for crimes committed by the President is impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate, a process which we just so happens to have recently done! If the GOP House wants to impeach Biden tomorrow and send that trial to the Senate, ok, bring up the charges and do it.

My view is that any political leader who committed crimes so serious that a prosecutor decided to seek charges and a grand jury actually brought the charges, that’s good, we should have them face the legal system. Failing to do this is just as bad a system as nakedly political charges for everyone the minute they leave office or the political winds shift.

I guess I’m most troubled by you saying, “Until that comes, yeah I’d rather we not go jailing political rivals for crimes we know the other side committed.”

I don’t agree. Lots of flaws and assumptions there, but also that’s just not how our legal system works.

The second best time to do the right thing is right now.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lawman said:


No you don’t get to pretend it’s no big deal we didn’t charge Hillary and just call it my bad here…

If you think Hillary should have been charged and it was a grave injustice for her to slip away relatively unscathed at least legally, you should also be an enthusiastic proponent of Trump facing real justice for very similar, and I would argue more serious, alleged crimes. Why would you not be other than just naked partisanship or a false belief in “makeup calls” where two wrongs somehow make a right?

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no political leaders or declared candidates should be charged with crimes so we can “let the democratic process play out?”
What alternative process do you recommend for charging people you think are currently unjustly going on with life?
Was there not ample time and opportunity for Trump’s DOJ to charge Hillary if the case was there, even if just for pure political payback? Surely there was. Why did Sessions, Barr or others fail to do that?
Can a prosecutor not bring charges against private citizen Hunter Biden if they wanted to? That is fine by me if there is a case a prosecutor things they can win.
Charging sitting President Biden is highly unlikely because the legal remedy for crimes committed by the President is impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate, a process which we just so happens to have recently done! If the GOP House wants to impeach Biden tomorrow and send that trial to the Senate, ok, bring up the charges and do it.
My view is that any political leader who committed crimes so serious that a prosecutor decided to seek charges and a grand jury actually brought the charges, that’s good, we should have them face the legal system. Failing to do this is just as bad a system as nakedly political charges for everyone the minute they leave office or the political winds shift.
I guess I’m most troubled by you saying, “Until that comes, yeah I’d rather we not go jailing political rivals for crimes we know the other side committed.”
I don’t agree. Lots of flaws and assumptions there, but also that’s just not how our legal system works.
The second best time to do the right thing is right now.

You are completely clueless or just ignorantly blind if you think some local or state level prosecutor can just go ahead and charge the sitting president’s son. Like it’s not even hard, the guy bought and then threw a gun in a dumpster having already had a felony. He would never survive a form 4733, which lying on is a felony. So what happens now? So tell us why other than the fact you would be charging a presidents son would that crime be ignored. It’s not like gun violence and violation of firearms laws isn’t a huge concern of your party.


Yes it’s severely concerning that we have for a decade now excused what we all knew to be true, that Hillary was guilty of at the very least crimes which would prohibit her participation in the political class of our country, yet somehow that’s just excuses or in some cases denied. But oh, charging Trump (when he’s the political candidate the party in power is most afraid of) is somehow our solution to decades of bad faith actions and political protection. Proclaim from the chief executive, “From this day forward we will do what we should have for the last several decades…..” No if you’re going to win, and more importantly beat Trump’s populist movement, you need to do it on the up and up. This sideways attempt at just denying him the ability to participate in the political process is being rightly called out for what it is, a shady attempt to sideways secure victory by using the weight of the executive office.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No if you’re going to win, and more importantly beat Trump’s populist movement, you need to do it on the up and up.

My party and the country at large already did this once TYVM 😎 It’s on Republicans to do what you’ve described above right now, in the primary. It ain’t going great so far, NGL!

If Trump is the 2024 GOP nominee I’ll do everything I can to help him repeat the L he took in 2020, ideally even bigger.

My BL legal theory here is very simple: if you do crimes and there is a clear case a prosecutor thinks they can win based on the evidence, they should bring the case and you should be charged. If a judge/jury finds you guilty, you should be punished. Full stop. No one is above the law. The only exception is the few offices where the constitution prescribes impeachment instead.

If our system has failed at sometime in the past to achieve that ideal, which it absolutely has, we should work hard to fix it going forward. Especially hard to not repeat the exact same mistakes time and time again. Elites bypassing the justice system “normal” people would face is one such repeated mistake I am fully on board with aggressively correcting back to ideal on. We can do this right now! And I think the Trump federal indictment is a good example of holding elites accountable for pretty obvious crimes…hard to get more elite than him and he’s on tape saying he did what the charges alledge.

I teach this as a moral code to my kids and I think it’s pretty much 100% in line with the values our country was founded upon. Golden rule, don’t dream small, do your best, if you make mistakes do better next time, and don’t make the same mistakes over and over and over again.

Other slipperier legal theories re: Hillary, Trump, etc. just don’t hold a lot of weight to me, at least as they’ve been explained here.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...